How the West Gassed Thousands to Death in Damascus

April 19, 2014 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - The bombshell report by Pulitzer Prize-winning veteran journalist Seymour Hersh titled, “The Red Line and the Rat Line,”
contains many shocking revelations for those following the West’s
version of reality regarding the Syrian conflict. It particularly sheds
new light on the August 2013 chemical attack that left over a thousand
dead (US estimates) and thousands more affected.

It
reveals that not only was the Syrian government not behind the attack,
but that it was a false flag operation designed specifically to serve as
an impetus for Western military intervention. It also reveals that the
West’s desire to intervene in the wake of the chemical attack was not
to disarm Syria of its chemical weapons as was stated to the public, but
instead was intended to completely destroy the Syrian military and save
its militant proxies who were already well on their way to losing the
war.

However,
for all the revelations it contains, it provides only a glimpse into
the greater conspiracy the West has been engaged in, grossly
understating the unfolding truth of the West’s role behind the
devastating conflict that is consuming Syria. To understand the entire
picture, one must examine Hersh’s work stretching back as far as 2007.

Hersh’s Syrian Trilogy

Taken
alone, Hersh’s latest report is damning. Taken together with two
previous pieces, spanning a total of 7 years of analysis and
investigative journalism, Hersh’s work paints a picture of a West
engaged in a diabolical, premeditated conspiracy to mire Syria in a
sectarian bloodbath for the purpose of achieving regime change in
Damascus and undermining neighboring Iran. It becomes clear upon reading
Hersh’s work, that the chemical attack in Damascus was not only
perpetrated by the West, but was done to trigger a greater war on top of
the carnage the West has already intentionally sown.

“To
undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration
has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle
East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s
government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended
to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The
U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and
its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering
of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and
are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.”

The same report would reveal that the
US, Saudi Arabia, and Israel had already begun funding Syria’s Muslim
Brotherhood to begin preparations for the impending conflict, and that
analysts within the US intelligence community foresaw a humanitarian
catastrophe in the making, spurred by the arming of large groups of
sectarian extremists.

Hersh’s second piece would come in the
aftermath of the August 2013 chemical attack in Damascus. Published in
December of 2013, Hersh’s piece titled, “Whose Sarin?” stated (emphasis added):

Barack
Obama did not tell the whole story this autumn when he tried to make
the case that Bashar al-Assad was responsible for the chemical weapons
attack near Damascus on 21 August. In some instances, he omitted
important intelligence, and in others he presented assumptions as facts.
Most significant, he failed to acknowledge something known to the US
intelligence community: that the Syrian army is not the only party in
the country’s civil war with access to sarin, the nerve agent that a UN
study concluded – without assessing responsibility – had been used in
the rocket attack. In the months before the attack, the American
intelligence agencies produced a series of highly classified reports,
culminating in a formal Operations Order – a planning document that
precedes a ground invasion – citing evidence that the al-Nusra Front, a
jihadi group affiliated with al-Qaida, had mastered the mechanics of
creating sarin and was capable of manufacturing it in quantity. When the
attack occurred al-Nusra should have been a suspect, but the
administration cherry-picked intelligence to justify a strike against
Assad.

The lengthy report goes on in detail,
covering the manner in which Western leaders intentionally manipulated
or even outright fabricated intelligence to justify military
intervention in Syria – eerily similar to the lies told to justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and the escalation of the war in Vietnam after the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

The report also reveals that Al Nusra, Al Qaeda’s Syrian franchise,
was identified by US intelligence agencies long ago for
possessing chemical weapons. These are the same terrorists Hersh warned
about in his 2007 article, and mentioned again as being at the center of
Western designs in his most recent piece.